Skin Blues wrote:Umpires are not going to over-rule each other. They're allowed to do that already, yet they never do. So it's great in theory, but not in practice. Having an ump in a video review booth would be MUCH faster than having the manager coming out and yelling at the umps for 5 minutes. How long does it take to review a call in tennis? 5 seconds? Baseball would be just as quick... it's black and white in almost all cases, not like football where they have to see if he had two feet in bounds, made a football move before the ball started to come loose, etc. It's much simpler in baseball; was the ball in his glove before the runner touched the base? Did the ball hit the chalk line? Simple stuff... give them a few challenges per game like football or tennis. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of how long it takes to evolve.

They just did on the trap play the other day.Why would anyone review, if the manager is not yelling at the umps? Or at least asking to reconsider.Theres no way that takes 5 sec in tennis. Yelling takes longer.It would be easier if there was an ump in a review room who watches every replay right away, so by the time the managers reaches the ump, they already correcting if necessary.I see no need for that NFL style review.It's not simpler in baseball. According to an ESPN study

an average of 1.3 calls per game were close enough to require replay review to determine whether an umpire had made the right call. Of the close plays, 13.9 percent remained too close to call...

the awesome sig by soty

"You should be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment." - Qui-Gon Jinn (keeper league expert?)

bigh0rt wrote:Reviewing a call in tennis very literally takes less than 15 seconds. It's instantaneous. Would love to see baseball develop something similar.

In tennis, systems such as Hawk-Eye and MacCAM calculate the trajectory of the ball by processing the input of several video cameras.In baseball it's not that simple. In baseball you need actual visual evidence in many cases. Ball trajectory calculation won't cut it.

the awesome sig by soty

"You should be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment." - Qui-Gon Jinn (keeper league expert?)

J35J wrote:The problem with Lawrie being so badass is he's going to start being badass on the bench and only playing 120 games a year because he's going to be constantly dinged up all the time. He may be fine right now because he's young and his body is made of titanium but just put a couple more years on him and he won't be able to come back from all the wear and tear he puts on his body.

Syfo-Dyas wrote:It would be easier if there was an ump in a review room who watches every replay right away, so by the time the managers reaches the ump, they already correcting if necessary.I see no need for that NFL style review.

Isn't this pretty much agreeing with what I suggested? One ump in a review booth... meaning a 5th ump, who is already present at every game as an injury replacement, anyway.

Syfo-Dyas wrote:It's not simpler in baseball. According to an ESPN study

an average of 1.3 calls per game were close enough to require replay review to determine whether an umpire had made the right call. Of the close plays, 13.9 percent remained too close to call...

I read that as 181 plays per team, per season, that would benefit from review. 2,700 plays overall, per season. That's pretty huge. You say it's not simpler in baseball but I bet 13.9% is a lot lower than the "too close to call" plays in the NFL. And the idea is that instead of arguing, you spend that time reviewing the call. Would it even add any length to the game? Only negative is interrupting the break-neck speed that a baseball game operates at...